587 S.W.3d 831
Tex. App.2019Background
- Plaintiff Loretta Flores, born 1956, long-time TTUHSC-El Paso employee; served as Director and Executive Associate to deans; received strong performance evaluations.
- In 2014–2015 institutional reorganization created a new president position (Dr. Richard Lange) and a new assistant-to-the-president role filled by Vanessa Solis (born 1978), previously supervised by Flores.
- In 2015 Flores was reclassified/demoted from Director to Executive Associate working exclusively for Provost De La Rosa; her salary dropped from >$85,000 to $64,000 while Solis’s pay was ~$58,291.
- Flores sued under the TCHRA for age discrimination; Texas Tech filed a plea to the jurisdiction seeking dismissal, arguing no jurisdictional facts showed a colorable age-discrimination claim.
- The trial court denied the plea; the court of appeals reviewed whether Flores raised fact issues under the McDonnell Douglas framework to survive the jurisdictional challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea to the jurisdiction should be granted on jurisdictional facts for an age-discrimination claim | Flores showed facts (replacement by Solis, reassignment of duties, age-related remarks, strong performance evaluations, dispute over decisionmaker) creating triable issues | Texas Tech argued duties and titles differed (no true replacement), Flores was paid within her range, and employer had nondiscriminatory reasons for reclassification | Denied — genuine fact issues exist to proceed; plea properly denied |
| Whether Solis “truly replaced” Flores (prima facie element) | Flores: duties formerly performed by her were reassigned to Solis, creating a true-replacement claim | Texas Tech: positions/titles differ, Flores’s director role was eliminated; Solis’s role was distinct and newly created | Court found factual disputes about duty overlap; Flores met prima facie replacement theory threshold |
| Whether Texas Tech articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reason | N/A (burden shifts to employer) | Texas Tech: Lange lacked confidence in Flores’s fit/skill, HR classification limits salary — legitimate performance/organizational reasons | Court accepted these as nondiscriminatory reasons for burden-shifting purposes |
| Whether Flores showed pretext/causation to raise fact issues | Flores pointed to positive evaluations, lack of documentation of poor performance, inconsistent testimony about decisionmaker, and age-related comments by Lange | Texas Tech: Flores’s subjective belief insufficient; Lange and Flores were both in protected age class; comments were stray | Court held Flores’s cumulative evidence created genuine fact issues on pretext/causation; case proceeds to factfinder |
Key Cases Cited
- Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Clark, 544 S.W.3d 755 (Tex. 2018) (standard for pleas to the jurisdiction and when to consider evidence)
- Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2012) (TCHRA waives sovereign immunity and guidance on discrimination claims)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Texas Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (trial court discretion and summary-judgment-type review for jurisdictional fact issues)
- Texas Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (employer burden to articulate legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons)
- State v. Lueck, 290 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. 2009) (limits on jurisdictional fact inquiries into the merits)
- Baker v. Gregg County, 33 S.W.3d 72 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000) (replacement analysis focuses on duties performed rather than job title)